Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 31, 2020 18:42:21 GMT
![drystyx Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/avatar/TUNkIVchSDKBUuKrqkKd.jpg)
![Eva Yojimbo Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/avatar/aiTkq0jzFLWgrQodvQrS.jpg)
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Every literary theme is old and the vast majority dates back to the earliest written history. To look for original themes in art is a fool's errand. Originality is found not in the themes but in their expression. It's never "oh, I've never heard this said before," and always "oh, I've never heard this said this way before." That was Zeppelin's originality; not in what was said, but in how. The ability to take old ideas and make them feel new and profound because of the originality of expression is the power of the best art. However silly/nonsensical I think the lyrics to Stairway are, I understand why people interpret it as being profound because the music makes you feel it. Break down the plots to Mozart and Wagner's operas and they're mostly silly too, but combine those silly plots with the brilliant music of their genius composrs and suddenly simple stories of a serial philanderer who gets his comeuppance (Don Giovanni), or two forbidden lovers yearning for each other (Tristan & Isolde), seem earth-shatteringly profound.
Zeppelin had plenty of short songs, as I'm sure you know. I just don't understand the notion of them not having enough pizzaz or emotion or theatrics, all very much things they're notable for; nor the notion that they were repetitious or that their changes didn't sound like changes. Zeppelin were one of the most dynamic bands of all time who melded the heaviness of blues rock with the burgeoning 70s prog rock movement, which was utterly unique in that time period; most bands either stuck with the blues/rock basics (punk) or became ever more compositionally and instrumentally elaborate (prog). Zep were the only band (until Rush came along) that did both, and did both incredibly well.
What person could possibly say that Zeppelin is profound, or that the music makes you feel it?
Sure, Rush did succeed in this. Peart was a true poet in every sense. But like Led, their music didn't match the poetry. However, Rush is an oxymoron because while they're among the best poets, they're also the very best hard rock power trio I ever saw on stage. I saw them do the power trio act when they came out with 2112, before they started doing the laser light show. When they started going to laser light, it just didn't match the music.
Zeppelin just had poor, trite poetry, even for the time. I was alive at the time. I know. It was trite even then. And, what's worse, the music made you feel nothing. It was musical enough to listen to, but it didn't match the lyrics one iota. Rush had the same problem, but at least their lyrics and music was not nearly as annoying as Led Zeppelin's.
Of course Rush's music "matched the poetry." Nobody would give a shit about Rush if it was just Peart's writing (which isn't always great anyway; The Trees is pure cringe). Nobody would care about the vast majority of musicians/songwriters if it was just the lyrics. Complaining about lyrics in pop music is ridiculous. Songwriting isn't poetry, it's about the music. You can pretty much put any lyrics to any good music and it'll work. Maybe Zeppelin's music made YOU feel nothing, but that's obviously not true for a great meany people. Luckily, you don't speak for everyone.